Wars and Conflicts permalink
The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 20th July 2010
From some exchanged posts with Nordmann on another thread about Ireland, I thought to raise this thread about the Irish civil war in the early 1920s and the roles, Michael Collins and Eamon De Valera played in this period.
After both persons, who had some in common on their aim to achieve an independent Ireland, according to the declaration of the Irish Republic from the Easter Rising in 1916, they became the two persons after that failed rebellion who stood for an pragmatic and dogmatic way to achieve an Irish Republic.
Some poster on these boards, I like to excuse myself on this occasion for I can´t remember now his name, set up a link to the whole chronicle of the debates about the Irish Free State Treaty which has been held for several days in the Irish Dail before they voted in favour or against it.
The point I try to spot on is, that although during this debate, there were several members of the Dail who expressed their opinions on this subject, in most historical chronicles the two parts which stood contrary to each other, has been focused merely on this two persons, M. Collins and E. De Valera. Other important persons, like Arthur Griffin on the Free State side and Cathal Bruga on the Republican side, are more to see in the shadow of these two big fellas. I can´t recall any other person in that times who has given the most imflamatory speeches against the Free State Treaty in particular and this combined with personnell asaults against M. Collins, to persuade the Dail to reject the Treaty.
The result of the votes in the Irish Dail was a small majority of seven in favour of that treaty, which has been confirmed by the later held referendum by the public. The split of the Irish Republican Movement upon this treaty and the assassinated murderer of M. Collins had made it - in my opinion - a bit harder for the Irish Free State to achieve an independent and modern state in a shorter time than it then developed until Ireland declared itself independent in 1937 and afterwards established their constituent Republic in 1949.
The start of the Irish civil war upon this treaty was something like the second part of an once in 1916 started revolution in Ireland with short interruptions and it was then the fight between pragmatism and dogmatism. E. De Valera was mostly held responsible for the outbreak of that civil war, but I think that he was the head of the Republicans, but not the only one who decided to go on a further attempt to achieve the Irish Republic by using arms, and then against the own people.
It would be interesting what other contributors on these boards, especially those familiar with Irish history, think on that subject.
Are there some people who would share my thought, that if M. Collins hasn´t been murdered and had become a few years later the leader of the Irish government, some things had turned out different in Irish history and that probably Ireland whould had become an independent Republic before WWII, so to say in 1937 as well?Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 2
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
I doubt it would've made much of a difference....
Europe was a chaotic continent at the time. Spain was in the grips of civil war, the Fascists had taken power forcefully in Germany and Italy, etc.
I believe the British were always going to resist Irish independence as long as possible, and were determined to hold on to Ulster at all costs, a decision which just further exacerbated the 'troubles' in NOrthern Ireland, IMHO.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 3
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
shivfan,
I think your depiction of Europe in general for the early 1920s doesn´t suits to what you were referring to. Spanish Civil War 1936 - 1939, Fascists taken over power in Germany 1933, just with Italy on its path to an fascist state in the 1920s fits.
The question of mine wasn´t about an united Ireland, it was more about the developing of the Irish Free State into an independent Republic in less than two decades. My thoughts on this comes from the debates and considerations among the British governments in the 1930s to grant India the Dominion Status, as the opportunity for its independence. So to think when India would´ve get dominion status in that time, why not - aside from the strategical reasons Churchill defendet - independence for the Irish Free State as well, which nontheless declared its independence in 1937.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 4
Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Friday, 30th July 2010
Dominion status for the Free State was already offered. The issue was that the Republicans did not accept, not only partition, but also the continued nominal status of the British monarch as head of state of a Dominion, and the consequent oaths of loyalty.
The "Indian" solution of 1949 (by which India became a republic at independence but acknowledged the British monarch as "Head of the Commonwealth") didn't seem to have occurred to anyone in 1921, but even if it had, partition would still have been the major issue, as it remained until 1998.
As a hypothetical: what would have happened if the Easter Rising had never taken place?Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 5
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Friday, 30th July 2010
Or, what would have happened if the Easter Rebels had been kicked out of Dublin Castle and left to the mercies of the crowd?
Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 31st July 2010
As a hypothetical: what would have happened if the Easter Rising had never taken place?Â
Probably not much different. There were, for example, no 'Easter Rising' in Helsinki or in Warsaw during the First World War but Finland and Poland nevertheless gained their independence afterwards.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 7
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Saturday, 31st July 2010
Probably not much different. There were, for example, no 'Easter Rising' in Helsinki or in Warsaw during the First World War but Finland and Poland nevertheless gained their independence afterwards.Â
Not exactly a like for like comparison, there was no revolution in Britain during WW1.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 8
Posted by Patrick Wallace (U196685) on Wednesday, 4th August 2010
I was turning this over in my mind. I suppose that, even if the frantic attempts by those not in the conspiracy to call the Easter Rising off had succeeded, there would have been plenty more tension-arousing events between then and the end of the war, which could have given rise to the kind reactions that eventually led to the Sinn Fein success in the 1918 election. If that hadn't happened, the Tory-dominated UK government at the end of the war would have been even less likely simply to revive the 1914 Â鶹ԼÅÄ Rule Act that they had opposed. So the outcome would have been much the same sort of fudge, though possibly with less bitterness and violence, and maybe no Irish Civil War if open military revolt hadn't acquired the heroic status that 1916 and its aftermath had actually given it.
Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 9
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 16th August 2010
It could well have happened had one man's role played out a little differently.
Only a trick involving forged documents on the part of the IRB leadership persuaded a reluctant Eoin MacNeill to commit his Irish Volunteer troops to the Rising, a necessary part of the rebels' plan of campaign without which the order to start could never be credibly given. A last-minute withdrawal of those troops by MacNeill (when the trick was found out, essentially) doomed the Rising to fail except as a gesture. However there were other implications.
MacNeill was a man who Collins was known to admire greatly as a strategist, and of all the militia leaders in 1916 he seems also to have been the one who commanded greatest authority and respect from his troops (he also headed the largest such militia). He was opposed to direct confrontation in open combat but was known to be open to a guerilla campaign, effectively what transpired in the War of Independence and in which many of his men fought and died, but then as IRA members. He had also formulated in advance many aspects of that campaign, which in hindsight proved prophetic in that many of them were not instituted until Collins and other guerilla leaders had lost too many men (and public support) learning them the hard way.
If Pearse & Co had not taken the course of action they did it is conceivable that MacNeill, with encouragement and support from others who were prominent in the Rising and later the W of I, might well have committed his troops to such an action. Of course, such a hypothetical scenario is impossible to predict with regard to its course of conduct and outcome, but given that Britain proved always to be tactically astute but strategically stupid with regard to countering Irish militancy, it is not inconceivable that the war thus started would have escalated in much the same manner as the W of I, and with much the same result in terms of garnering public support for the cause, probably even greater with respect to Ulster.
Throw in that it would have been more likely conducted with a greater degree of military intelligence and leadership, and with greater manpower on the part of the Irish, then the political settlement it would have resulted in might well have been radically different from that which the 1922 Treaty arrived at. An Ulster IRA led by MacNeill would have been a far more formidable entity than what emerged post 1916.
In reality 1916 finished MacNeill, who knew even before it began that it was shooting the bolt too early and was effectively neutralised as a military leader in its wake. He had a brief political career subsequent to the Free State's establishment, gravitated towards academia, and died of old age in 1945 a renowned expert in ancient Irish manuscripts who rarely if ever voiced a political opinion. An intelligent man, whose intelligence with regard to conducting a war to secure his country's independence was sadly ignored when it was most needed.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 10
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Monday, 16th August 2010
Although he seems to have wanted to wait for a catalyst like British attempts to confiscate weapons or the imposition of conscription; some seemed to be of the opinion that such a scenario would have left the IV at a disadvantage and would have robbed them of the benefit of surprise - it may have been 1867 over again...
Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 11
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi ShaneONeal
The "benefit of surprise" as you use the term is one sought in all-out combat, and has a completely different meaning in guerilla warfare. MacNeill, writing in the Freemans Journal in 1914, actually addressed that very point when he said;
"It is futile to wage war against an enemy who has been taught to expect surprise of the type on which we have previously depended. Combat, should it be engaged, must of necessity provide both combatants with a possibility of success and [if engaged in the cause of nationalism] success for the nationalist must mean much more than simply a military victory. The oppressor can be satisfied with such simple goals; the oppressed must aim for a higher achievement and therefore be prepared to work long and hard to attain it. If we are ever to surprise our enemy again it will be in our dogged determination to pursue our aim. The days of pinning our aspirations on the hope of success with sudden general uprising are not only over but consigned by our enemy to historical irrelevance. We must learn from that, as he has, and be prepared for the long haul."Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 12
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi Nordmann,
Thanks for contributing to this thread and telling about MacNeill, which shows me - again - that there is much more beyond Collins and De Valera.
I´m currently read in the book "Michael Collins and the making of the Irish State". There are various authors on this subject in that book, but I´m just sticking by the first chapter. It is published by the Irish publisher "Mercier Press", from whom I´ve ordered some books concerning Irish history, some years ago to have a variety of sources on Irish history, especially on its period of the 20th Century in particular.
I just wonder whether you know Mercier Press, as for they have a wide range of books about Irish history, remarkably concerning the Easter Rising and its aftermath with the civil war and some biographies. But I didn´t came across a book about MacNeill on their website.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi Thomas
I am indeed familiar with Mercier, they are one of Ireland's largest publishers and specialise in books of Irish interest.
MacNeill has never been a popular subject for biographies, though much is written about him in the context of others'. One book I read was published by the Irish University Press and is a collection of articles about him by various authors, edited by FX Martin.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 14
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi Nordmann,
I thought, but I wasn´t sure, that you know Mercier. I first met them when I visited the anual book fair at Frankfurt/Main in 2004. Mercier Press was - when I remember well - the only Irish publisher in the Hall of International book publishers. In that time, I still had a big interest in Irish history, not so familiar then in reading books in English language, it was my first attempt to start reading books on Irish history in English. The problem is, that there are not very much books published in German language on Irish history. Surely about Irish history in general, but not on particular events / time periods.
The author of the chapter in that book I´ve mentioned, raises many questions to consider on how the events went in that time and there are many "what if´s" in there as well. I don´t have the book right here, so I can´t cite from it. One remarkable thing which is stated there is, that the partition of Ireland has been already solved by the British Government with the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, before the Independence War in Ireland has ceased and Collins went to London for negotiating the Free State Treaty. The setting of the then later Irish Border Commission was - as I see it - just a condition by the British to settle the partition in the Free State Treaty. The decision has been made with nothing much room for alterations.
I didn´t noticed that fact before and without bias towards the British, it just proved that they knew exactly on how far they would go in the negotiations with the Irish. But it shows in the other hand that the Irish didn´t knew how far they could go on their aims then. Probably this Government of Ireland Act was either not noticed or neglected by the leaders of the Irish Independence War from 1919 to 1921. The further question that araises in following this, is whether the Independence War was necessary at all, when the British were preparing for the partition of the whole Island of Ireland. Was it an attempt by the British to solve their "Irish problem" in that way after Â鶹ԼÅÄ Rule was adjourned for the time of WWI? I´ll see whether there is an answer in the books I´ve purchased from Mercier Press.
How do you regard the Government of Ireland Act from 1920?Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 15
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi Thomas
The Act was the culmination of years of legislative and political tinkering and in its final 1920 form pleased no one it had been designed to supposedly accommodate. It was accepted by Ulster Unionists however, knowing that nothing more generous was likely to emanate from Westminster and knowing too that to implement it without delay would hamper the Irish contingent at the Treaty negotiations and make a 32-county settlement unlikely. Southern Irish disregard for it meant that it really only applied in name, few of its provisions became political reality.
The Treaty negotiators, as with those who fought the War of Independence, were of course well aware of it. It was generally regarded as a futile gesture on the British part (too little, too late etc) and it purportedly came as a surprise to Collins when his British counterparts during negotiation informed him that the partition element enshrined in the Act wasn't up for negotiation.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
-
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Tuesday, 17th August 2010
Hi Nordmann,
I´ve just recently made a quick research on google about the text of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. From what I´ve read in the first sections of that Act I see, that there was nothing much left for the Irish Republicans to accept it. Neither was it to anticipate that this had worked, for the Southern Irish Parliament would had been something like a "puppet-parliament" under British rule in its effect. Nor do I believe that the Irish Council, as an institution for both Irish Parliaments, would had worked in that time.
The Treaty for the Irish Free State was, by the then terms and conditions, the reasonable achievable compromise as the stepping stone into Irish Freedom. I´m not sure but I think that it could have something to do with the time when Neville Chamberlain was British PM that the Irish Free State set up its first constitution to get rid of the name "Free State" without serious reaction from the British side. It is further remarkable that in that time, as well as in 1949 when the Irish State set up its constitution for the Republic of Ireland, Winston S. Churchill was not in Power.
With regards to the British side, concerning their dealing with the Irish demands for Independence, they had to concider the effects on other Dominions, especially India, if the British had dismissed Ireland from their Kingdom and Empire. As it has shown some decades later, the Independence of India, market the end of the British Empire, because this was its largest country and those countries in Africa, which followed from the 1950s to the 1980s went that way consequently. So I think that the British probably dealt with the Irish not only focused on how to solve the problem in Ireland, but how to keep its Empire together. The in the particular time periods leading political powers in Britain, acted that way sometimes a bit more and a bit less harder. So it might had been as well a bit of luck for Ireland, that in the time when the Republic of Ireland was constituted and international recognised in 1949, Clement Attlee was then British PM. If Winston Churchill had won the general election in 1945, he probably had neither dismissed India into independence nor had he accepted that Ireland left the Commonwealth of Nations, as to abandon its last tie to the British Empire.
I´ve read in another book ("A Course of Irish History"), that after Collins´s dead, De Valera had quite another opponents within the IRA and Sinn Fein. But after his absence from Dial until the late 1920s, he was there in 1937 by Enactment of new constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann, and became Taoiseach for the first time. As well as he took part in preparing Ireland for its new constitution of the Republic of Ireland. In the end, he succeeded, even when it took 30 years from the War of Independence to the then full independent Republic of Ireland.
I´ve often noticed that De Valera was blamed for the big influence he granted the RC Church in Ireland on public affairs, if not to say as well into politics in Ireland. This might be an argueable topic, but from that point of view, I often wonder what had been if M. Collins had been in the leading positions in the years 1937 and 1949 which are to me, after 1916 and 1919 - 1921 the most important time remarks in Irelands recent history of the 20th Century. I´ve read in another book about M. Collins, that he had some ideas related to Socialism, but it might had been the more Irish version of Socialism, compared with an not exaggerated Nationalism (not to confuse with the similar combination of those two words in Germany). I think that Collins was the less Church bound than De Valera.
I know that there is very much to learn for me about those decades in particular from Irish history. It´s quite interesting to read about the different ideas the people had on how this independent Ireland, they dreamed of and fought for it, should have been and how it developed itself on the circumstances of the times. I have as well a book (from the usual Irish publisher) about "De Valeras Irelands" (which is the book title). Once I started to read, but haven´t finished it, I´ll have to start again. But just one after another of the books I have about Irish History.
I appreciate your posts on Irish history topics, because I think, that people who can tell about their own countries history have the better insight and understanding to eventually explain some things in a different way as to be read in a book.
Now I have to leave and I´ll have the book about Collins (which I´m currently read) tomorrow with me.Link to this forum: The Irish Civil War in the 1920s in concern of M. Collins and E. De Valera.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.